About your Search

20110701
20110731
SHOW
STATION
CSPAN2 26
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26
. it would have three big teaches and, again, the details of these -- it would have three big features, and again the details would be outlays need to equal revenues. that is the fundamental definition of a balance. you don't run deficits. you make sure that you spend no more than you take n the sieged thing that some of us feel strongly about and i'm one of them, we ought to limit spending as a percentage of our economy so that the government doesn't keep growing at the expense of the private sector, which is exactly what happens when the government occupies too large a segment of our economy. and finally, we've advocated that we not create a mechanism that simply guarantees big tax increases in order to balance the budget and to do that we would like -- and we have included a supermajority requirement to raise taxes. so that a simple majority wouldn't be enough. it would require a supermajority, which would only occur presumably in truly extraordinary circumstances. see, i believe very strongly that we can have strong economic growth and the job creation that we need. but to get ther
a big deal, $4 trillion, or whether we're going to have a smaller deal of $2 trillion, but the real issue is whether or not we're going to have a fair deal, a deficit-reduction package which represents the interests of working people and the vast majority of our people or whether we're going to have a deficit reductio-reduction packh ends up reflecting the needs of the wealthiest people in this country who are do phenomenally well and the largest corporations in this country who, in many instances, are making record-breaking profits. that's really what the debate is about. now, the republican position on deficit reduction has been extremely clear and is consistent with their right-wing ideology. despite the fact that our current deficit crisis has been caused by two wars unpaid for, huge tax breaks that have gone to the wealthiest people in this country, and a recession caused by the deregulation of wall street and the lack of revenue coming in as a result of that recession. our republican friends are adamant that while the richest people in this country are becoming much richer, wh
]. >> that is affirmative, atlantis. >> copy. >> one of the other big-ticket items for atlantis's crew will be the deployment of the dish-shaped ku band antenna over the starboard, forward sill of the payload bay. >> have we missed anything? >> okay. we'll take a look. >> chris ferguson asking capcom barry wilmore to make sure the team here is looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't miss anything in the post-insertion checklist. again the ku band antenna will be deployed soon. once the payload bay doors are open, that will enable a high data rate telemetry and down link television capability from the shuttle. >> atlantis, block three does look good to us. nice work. [no audio] [no audio] >> the electrical systems officer here in mission control reports that the crew has begun the process of turning on the lights in the payload bay. that in advance of the operation of the systems by rex walheim and chris ferguson to actually open the doors, deploy the radiators, and setting the stage for a go for on-orbit operations. atlantis crossing the pacific at an altitude of 143 by 97
they did it come after they lived up to their end of the bargain. you know, these big oil companies, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, defense spending, wall street banks, they are getting great big everything else, and i don't see the job creation. you know, unemployment is obviously out of control now even from what the reporting, it's not to mention the fact that, you know, they are only counting the people that are actively seeking employment and not the people that have given up all hope. it's like the voters in this country don't even seem to count any more. if you had cathy mcmorris rogers mention reform in the way we spend money on, you know, to paraphrase. we need reform and the election campaigns. you know, where are these candidates getting their money? and how much do they get? because those are the people that seem to be represented. it's like the voters aren't represented any more. >> thanks for the views. one more call police and from washington on the democrats' line. >> caller: hi, how're you doing. i am calling about the fact that under this present plan that t
in transforming themselves, she's one of the big reasons why. please help me in welcoming to the stage, liz schuller. [applause] >> thank you. all right. thank you, barry, for the introduction. and i'd like to think raj for raising the bar. thanks a lot for the rest of us and not those creative messaging tools that we all need to address inequality. i wish i would have heard her before my speech. so why am i here as part of this panel? the whole point of what i want to talk to you today is the power of collective action and how it could counter the rise in inequality and how unions fit into that picture. now, when i think about inequality, especially, as of late, i think about those teachers in wisconsin, construction workers in ohio, nurses in new hampshire, who have been locked out and denied their basic rights to collective bargaining. we've seen what it looks like the state capital in wisconsin and we show you now what's happening in office buildings all across this country. ♪ >> here's to america's workers. when the economy was down, they sacrificed. during tough times when executive
and a big part of this community. i was grateful to see him here today before i turn over to arianna who i think is an expert on journalism and editorial, i want to go through a few points of real big things that we're betting on as a company, not talk about aol but let's talk about the things we see in the future and why we're putting such an investment in journalism. number one question i get from wall street all the time is why journalism, why are you choosing when the rest of the world seems to be going away from journalism? why are you opening up a thousand patches? why did you buy the "huffington post"? and i think the things i'm about to talk about are a core essence of what we believe them. the first is really a bit of the human needs stage which is, if you woke up and today was your first day on planet earth, what would you knows and what would you see? i think there's some very stark things. one is there's four or 5 billion phones in peoples pockets and a lot of smart phone growth across the world, which means people are going to be connected full-time with information all the ti
in touch with mr. watson but not mr. bryant's big and presenting your committee, "the guardian" or anyone else? >> anyone who is holding material, which clearly people are, from the amounts of media coverage, and there's been some species are you surprised any of these names that are coming out, or do know these names? for example, the gordon brown issue. >> now, i am aware of them. >> mark reckless. [inaudible] holding material because of the stories coming out, is at least another theoretical possibility as stores are being sourced from within the metropolitan police? >> i'm sorry, i don't follow your. >> could it not be the opposite, whether paid or otherwise information, rather than necessary being the place that the media outlets already have it? [inaudible] >> well, we always, we will always be accused of that. i can say with absolute confidence, because i know what's been there. for instance, when there was speculation around victims of 77 bombings, we did not know that they were contained within our material. >> thank you for the answer that i wasn't accusing. >> is a natural thin
forward to reduce the deficit in a big way modeled after these bipartisan commissions, where there's been pretty good bipartisan agreeme agreement. but efforts to forge a grand compromise, bringing the deficit down by $4 trillion, have been abandoned by republican leaders over and over. i -- i have not supported every detail in these grand compromise efforts. i don't want to do anything to undermine medicare or social security or medicaid, programs that have worked for generations now and programs that millions of ohioans depend on, for middletown to ashtaboula to toledo and gallipolis. that's because i wanted a more balanced approach. i know the presiding officer did too. but as days and weeks and weeks and months go by, we're now only days away from default. we're simply running out of time. that's what the senate bill is about, protecting us from default. the spirit of continued compromise again, the majority leader has come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. it's truly a compromise because it meets the republicans' main criteria, it contains spending cuts to rou
is not for light or transient reasons. it's a big, big deal when the united states government has been for months and will continue to be borrowing about 40% of every dollar we spend, running up the largest deficits the nation has ever seen. and so what the law says, that -- the law and the united states code says you should have a budget. and when you set a budget, you take all of the bills that are out there and tell them how much money they have to spend so your total amount of money at the end does not exceed a dangerous level for the c. that's whac -- for the country. that's what a budget does. and so we're going to seek and repeatedly call to this senate's attention that we got the cart before the horse. we're spending money without a budget and we're going to have to have a budget, else we are not in control of our spending. and once you have a budget, it takes 60 votes to violate the budget. you can kind of stick to it if you make up your mind to do so. and we don't have to violate it and burst the budget. so that's -- that's what we're talking about today and it's a matter of great serio
, but it means, mr. president, that we can't be raising taxes on the job creators, and there is a big debate right now about how do we get ourselves out of this fiscal mess. i would submit to my colleagues that the real issue here is spending. if you go back to the foundation of our country, the year 1800, we were only spending 2% of our entire economic output on the government, the federal government. this year we're going to spend 24% to 25%. the historical average over the past 40 years is about 20.6%. we are dramatically higher in terms of what we are spending on our federal government as a percentage of our entire economy. to me, clearly, we don't have a revenue issue here in washington. we have a spending issue. which would suggest that we ought to get after spending, after federal spending, particularly spending that is -- is duplicative, redundant, there are so many things in the federal government that we spend money on that we need to get that waste and that -- and all those types of wasteful spending out of our spending here in washington, d.c., but we also have to focus on those
to see the quick video i promised. jfc engages a big tent of stakeholders, a big tent in shake holders because as i mentioned, a broken framework fabric of society requires as i mentioned a patchwork of everybody being brought together. not just a small group, not just one small sector, not just the military or not just the political actors but all the sectors coming together including the community, government, society, all people who need to buy into this system and be part of it and agree. and have that social contract. and the week before last, we published a case study, it's thick, a case study on jsd and tleeshsz a smaller version on our website but we tried someone who was involved walk step-by-step to paint the picture and just distill it and just a few policy recommendations. jsd, despite its name dialog is not just talking. it's not just talking and then leaving. it's really a vehicle or a means to do things that are vital to strengthening rule of law and post-conflict environment. there are a number of different things. it all has to be dependent upon the country context and
that is to come together in a bipartisan way around a big deal, around $4 trillion in savings at least. the senator from colorado went in some detail into the bipartisan debt and deficit commission. chaired bier sin bowles and alan simpson, and the 11 members of that commission, ems of members of this body currently serving senators, republican and democrat, who came together around a plan that would make $4 trillion in savings over the next decade. i think we should do no less than that. and i think the plan that we should be working on in detail now should include all four major areas where we have to have savings. reductions in discretionary domestic spending, reform to our entitlement programs, reductions in pentagon spending, and increases in federal revenue through tax reform. all four of these have to be on the table. in my view, our values ask no less than that. as we work through a recovery, we need to continue to invest in education, in infrastructure, in innovation, but we also need to responsibly put together a bipartisan path that will take on the sacred cows of this insti
outlet in mexico city was free, so i think there's been a big change, and one should remember that context. it is certainly true that there's serious threats to the lives and liberties of journalists and media organizations in mexico today, but they tend to be concentrated in remote areas away from the capitol. as was the case in colombia in the 1990s, and just in terms of the security and imp implications for democracy, i think it's crucial that moment ce moves faster on building a serious police force or serious police forces because the historic achievement of the mexican revolution was taking the army out of politics. i think in contrast to what was happening elsewhere in the region, i think there is a danger that the longer that the army's involved in the front line of -- of the crackdown against drug trafficking organizations, then the army risks becoming politicized and reputation tarnished, and, indeed, we're starting to see signs of violence in parts of mexico that are rem necessary sent of the revolution. i think the task of strengthening police forces in mexico is a
they weren't going to pay their taxes? of course they'd be in big trouble. and the senate is not in trouble but the country is in trouble because the senate is not doing its job and neither the house nor the senate did its job in the last congress for the first time ever and that's how we go into three years since we had a work document that we should have to work with. and what do we do this week? the disappointment to all three of us is we said we wanted to stay this week and deal with these issues. we started out trying to deal with the libya resolution which apparently wasn't important enough to deal with last thursday when we were going to take a week to work in our states. and then when people on the republican side said we really think we ought to be debating the reason we were supposed to stay, we still don't do that. we have this amendment -- i think it was supposed to be and is a sense of the senate that millionaires aren't paying enough taxes. now, we all understand -- we all understand the politics of that, just like we understand the politics of no accelerating depreciation for
the standard cost-benefit analysis rules. this affects our economy in big ways. it affects jobs and our ability to get this economy back on track. closing this independent agency loophole is a reform that those of us on both sides of the aisle should join the president in supporting. this is the right vehicle to be able to achieve that. no major regulation whatever its source, should be imposed on american employers or or on state and local governments without a serious consideration of what the costs are what the benefits are and whether there is available a less burdensome alternative to achieve the same objective. this amendment moves us closer toward that goal. it's a commonsense amendment again, taking the president's executive order and memorandum of today and actually putting it into force through the force of law. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: than
, it absolutely matters for economic development. and people in big cities might make fun of small airports, that they don't have all the -- all the hustle and bustle, but we do know that medium sized and smaller airports matter a great deal. with the refusal of the house to take up a clean extension of f.a.a., more than 4,000 employees have been furloughed, dozens of construction projects have come to a halt. in this economy, for some radicals in the house of representatives to decide because they have got a political mission and an ideology that doesn't quite fit with the majority of americans, they are going to again hold hostage something that just simply needs to be done, and that is what's called reauthorization of f.a.a. this many employees have been furloughed for who knows how long. senator rockefeller said some may look elsewhere for jobs. these are very skilled technicians and engineers and others. and what it means to these construction projects. f.a.a. helps to pay all over the country for modernization of airports, and we have all heard stories. i don't recall that i have ever
essentially go to another country and export through that country, put on, for example, "made in korea" -- big implications with these trade agreements -- and end up shipping those goods to the united states. and senator blunt and his constituents have made the correct point that that's, again, taking away jobs from middle-class folks. but we have got to get back here on the floor of the united states senate to the issue of jobs. that's the most important question for our constituents, madam president. staff told me on the way over here that a recent survey of businesses cites again their number-one concern, that sales are going down in their stores. and i think everybody here in the senate knows you can often go to a store on a weekend or an evening and you see hardly anybody there because middle-class people are very worried about what's ahead and simply because of these economic times do not have the money to go in and buy those goods and arrange for those services that in an economy that requires they be in the marketplace, they simply don't have the resources for it. so i hope my colleagu
that he likes to call a big deal. anyone who's looked at the figures knows that it isn't. but the larger point here is that the american people have already won this debate. no one, not even the president, can claim to support the status quo anymore, even when in fact he does. but of course winning the debate isn't nearly as important as achieving the reforms that are needed to convince the world that we're actually serious about getting our fiscal house in order. that's why republicans continue to hold out for significant reforms and that's why we'll continue to fight for serious long-term reforms this week. republicans have tried to persuade the president of the need for a serious course correction, but weeks of negotiations have shown that his commitment to big government is simply too great to lead to the kind of long-term reforms we need to put us on a path to both balance and economic growth. so we've decideed to bring our case to the american people. the president recently cited a poll that suggests americans want to see balance in this debate. i'd point him to another poll showin
and they count on washington, not always to take care of everything but take care of the big things like making sure we don't default on our obligations. he needed to talk to the american people, to those americans who haven't been paying close attention where this stands and why it is so important and why the risk is there that if congress doesn't act and we believe it will, something that has never happened before in our history could happen and it would be very bad indeed. that's why he had to address the country and why he wanted to explain to them his view, that compromise is so necessary. >> one other quick thing. i think on cbs radio this morn dan pfeiffer said if congress does not act by august 2nd this could lead to a depression. is this your position, that we might have a depression in america? >> depression, what i know, what, economic experts have said is that, and again, republican and democrat, jim baker, ronald reagan, all sorts, have said that a default on our obligations would produce an economic calamity. how that, how you demean that obviously depend on how long it lasts and
on it but i do know that it was in an effort to try to make sure that the rates that the two big providers in mississippi, and, of course, energy was heavily invested in louisiana as well. but i don't know the details on that but i do know. >> mr. mack so, have you had any experience with this kind of think? >> we have not. >> mr. serino, i'm going to the i am going to continue on this. chairman, i would love to talk to you about it and senator mccaskill and i have been talking about it. you know, if this community would've happened to have a municipal provider, let's say they paid 10% under the stafford act of the repair costs, they would be passing along to .5 million to the ratepayers instead of 25 million. court if they have a 75, 25 sure, they'll be passing along 6.2 the ratepayers instead of 25 million. those rate players pay federal taxes in exactly the same way that the neighboring community of carthage that has a municipal utility pays federal taxes. we have more experience with this with devastating i storms. we have miles and miles of polls broken off, and the mileage that is in
such a difficult time, but they're getting killed by the big warehouses that are selling to the folks who like to buy car parts. and, but this isn't just a main street versus internet because all these internet companies are on main street somewhere. and what happens when we get to the point where everybody's internet? aren't we all still just main street? and aren't we then in the same exact position as we are today where the internet, main street retailer in downtown sioux falls, south dakota, is competing with the internet mainstream retailer in utah without that price differential, and, you know, they're butting heads against each other trying to steal reach other's -- each other's local customers. in our view this is a retailing versus retailing, and at some point in this process we all have to compete with each other without the government giving one a competitive advantage over another. >> host: mr. peterson, you said earlier that you saw state sales tax going away. could you expand on that a little bit? >> guest: there is considerable concern among my employers that as you and i, the t
, vote for this amendment. mr. president, how big is this scheme? well, here's what our own permanent subcommittee on investigations has told us: "experts have estimated that the total loss to the treasury from offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion per year, including $40 billion to $70 billion from individuals and another $30 billion from corporations engaging in offshore tax evasion. abusive tax shelters add tens of billions of dollars more." mr. president, you want to lock in these abuses? you prefer to pay more in taxes yourself so that people can engage in these scams? vote for this amendment. vote for the legislation that's before us. vote for what is on the floor because you'll protect them forever more. mr. president, i end as i began. this is perhaps the most ill-conceived, ill-considered, internally inconsistent legislation that i have ever seen in my 25 years in the united states senate. i hope my colleagues have the wisdom to vote "no." i thank the chair and yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i just would lik
. speaker, in this debate, let us not lose sight of the big picture. the people who send us here want some pretty straightforward things. they want their media free and punchy but they want them within the law. they want their police independent and strong but honest and incorruptible. and they want their politicians to sort out a mess that has socked their faith in the key institutions in our country. we should be clear today that we will not let them down. >> here, here! >> order, the question is this house have considered the matter of public confidence in the media and the police. mr. ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i welcome this debate and i think in starting this debate all of us should remember what brings us here. because parliament would not have been recalled today if it had not been for the revelations by the hacking of millie doweler's phone. that revelation shocked our country and turned something that had seemed to be about the lives of politicians, footballers and celebrities into something very different. about the lives of others who never sought the public eye. and it is th
. it would be a new day here to get these bills rather than having some big omnibus bill. so this is a step in the right direction. again, i express my appreciation to the two managers of this legislation. as indicated, there will be no roll call votes today. more roll call votes today. tomorrow i'm going to move to proceed to the bill that we call the cut, cap bill received from the house today. under the rules of the senate, a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the bill will occur on saturday. i expect a cloture vote sometime saturday before lunch time. i'm committed to allowing a fair and full debate on this bill. i want the proponents and opponents to have time to air their views. if proponents of the bill decide they would like to vote sooner, if they would let me know, i would appreciate that and we'll try to work something out. there may be efforts made to try to advance that vote by others but as far as i'm concerned, we should have a full and fair debate on this matter and i look forward to that. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, if i may? the presiding officer: the republican le
if they succeed, our country succeeds. the country expects us to do that. i hope we think big and swing for the fences and get a result and bring it back to us and let us consider it and hopefully enact it and get on to other things. the debt is a major long term problem. not just for our grandchildren, but for us today. we have a bigger issue facing us. that is the fact that we've had persistent unemployment and an economy that's not growing and that's hurting too many people. the sooner that we swing for the fences and get a result and get our debt under control and deal with it in a bipartisan way, better for the country and the quicker we'll be able to get on to the larger question of jobs. of course, economist have made it clear to us getting the debt under control has a lot to do with jobs. that when our total debt is as high as it is today, nearly 100% of the gross domestic product, that probably costs us a million jobs a year. we can't solve all of that in one day, or one month. but we can take a big step in the right direction. that's really what our country men and women want
parents to protect entitlements for big oil companies, billionaire corporate executives who travel the world in private jets and millionaires who believe they are entitled to all of the tax loopholes they're getting now after the biggest tax cut in history, entitled to tax cuts but not obligated to create american jobs. contrary to the false rhetoric we hear from the other side about a correlation between entitlements for the wealthy and job creation. the hard right wing of the republican party has come to the table willing to give up nothing, unwilling to accept an offer by the president and democrats of trillions of dollars in spending cuts, potential savings in entitlement programs and tax reform options, all of which they have been demanding, unless we agree to protect to the entitlements that exist for the wealthy. not even a single penny on the revenue side of the option. don't touch those entitlements for the big five oil companies. don't touch the entitlements for the corporate jets. don't touch the entitlements for the racehorses. don't touch any of those entitlements give
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)